The team getting pujols already has votto, and the team getting max just wants him because its his fav player. Its a money league, commish veto only. i dont want to pass it and mess with the integrity of the league. What would you guys say?
Of course it's veto worthy and I say this as a Scherzer fan and owner. In an auction league Pujols probably sold for around $40.00 and Scherzer for around $15. A 25 dollar gap is insta-veto time.
Scherzer has great potential and had a great second half 2012 and has been very good this year so far except for one mediocre start. But he still does not even remotely have Pujols' track record.
And I believe you instinctively know this or else you wouldn't be asking.
Its allowable, but the guy getting Max is getting traderaped. It depends on what kind of comish you want to be. Its a completely unfair trade and the guys getting taken advantage of, but like folks said above me, you CAN make a case for the trade its just not a very plausible one. Personally I'd veto it just because of the "favorite player" thing, the guy's clearly got no head on his shoulders and is getting taken advantage of. But like I said, its up to you if you want to be the kind of comish that allows trade rape. Max is a fucking wildcard, yeah, the man throws a lot of K's but he also one of the most inconsistant pitchers in the last decade, and isnt that what you look for in a pitcher, consistency? Pujols is usually a lock for 30+ HR and 90+ RBIs. IMHO, not a fair trade, but its up to you if its veto worthy
I say no to the veto. In the leagues that I run with a Commish vote, I will veto only in cases of clear collusion.
If an owner wants a specific player and is willing to pony up another who is of more value, that is their choice. As long as it makes sense for both parties involved, I don't see a problem with this transaction.
I agree with the comments above, that there is no guarantee that Pujols will return to form especially with his recent injury history.